But Motorola has a plan to maintain device availability in the US.

An import ban on Motorola Android devices ordered by the US International Trade Commission is scheduled to take effect tomorrow. Motorola Mobility says it has a plan to make sure its Android phones and tablets remain available to US consumers—but the company isn't revealing just what that plan is.

The ITC ordered the import ban two months ago, after ruling that 18 Motorola Mobility products infringe a Microsoft patent. The patent is related to Exchange Active Sync and covers the generation of meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device. The ruling was subject to a 60-day Presidential review period, which will expire Wednesday.

Motorola, which is owned by Google, has several options. It could pay Microsoft for a license to the ActiveSync technology, just as it did between 2003 and 2007 before deciding that it wouldn't do so anymore. Motorola could also remove the infringing feature, or issue a software update that implements it in another way that doesn't infringe Microsoft's patent.

Motorola hasn't said what option it will choose, but told Ars in a statement that it will make sure US customers can still buy the devices.

"In view of the ITC exclusion order which becomes effective Wednesday with respect to the single ActiveSync patent upheld in Microsoft's ITC-744 proceeding, Motorola has taken proactive measures to ensure that our industry leading smartphones remain available to consumers in the US," Motorola said. "We respect the value of intellectual property and expect other companies to do the same."

As Motorola did not say whether it will import more devices into the US after Wednesday, it's possible the company has just stocked up to the point where it can meet US demand without more imports. However, Motorola was required to post a bond of 33 cents for each import that occurred during the 60-day Presidential review period.

UPDATE: We asked Motorola for more information, and got a slightly more specific response on Wednesday. "We can't share specific details, but we have employed a range of pro-active measures to ensure there is no continuing infringement under the ITC's interpretation of this single Microsoft patent," the company said. That statement is still vague, but seems to imply a software update that either strips out the calendar syncing functionality or implements it in another way.

"The exclusion order is not limited to these devices at issue in the ITC, but will cover all infringing devices from now until to the expiration of the patent, April 10, 2018," a Microsoft representative said.

Microsoft's complaint to the ITC in October 2010 named several of the above products, while saying Motorola's alleged violations weren't limited to those devices.

The ITC's exclusion order doesn't mention specific Motorola phones and tablets, but states broadly that "Mobile devices, associated software and components thereof covered by claims 1, 2, 5, or 6 of United States Patent No. 6,370,566 that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Respondent [i.e. Motorola] or any of its afﬁliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, or other related business entities, are excluded from entry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining term of the patent."

Microsoft is already paid royalties on more than 70 percent of Android smartphones sold in the US, with the Google-owned Motorola the lone major holdout.

"Microsoft brought this case only after Motorola stopped licensing our intellectual property but continued to use our inventions in its products," David Howard, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, said in a statement sent to Ars. "It’s unfortunate we’ve been forced to pursue legal action, but the solution for Motorola remains licensing our intellectual property at market rates as most other Android manufacturers have already done."

Given Motorola's promise to maintain device availability in the US, we asked Microsoft if it knows how Motorola will comply with the ITC exclusion order, and whether the two companies have come to some kind of agreement. It appears that no settlement has occurred, and Microsoft is also in the dark on how Motorola will ensure compliance.

"We do not have information on how they will comply," a Microsoft representative told us.

"Absent a drastic redesign, the exclusion order should cover most, if not all, new mobile devices developed by Motorola," Microsoft told Ars. "The exclusion order is not limited to these devices at issue in the ITC, but will cover all infringing devices from now until to the expiration of the patent, April 10, 2018."

indeed, shees the patent system is SO damn fucked up - stifling competition and innovation more than anything else.Beside, Microsoft did the same what Google/Motorola does now. Microsoft has (had?) a sale ban on XBOX 360 in Germany, what did Microsoft do? they just moved their entire warehouse logistics from Germany to the Netherlands to circumvent the ban.

it's just mudslinging. I daresay Microsoft is "scared" by the growth/influence Android has become on the market - so they fight all dirty.

Patents are a necessary evil. Without it such as China for example, where their entire technology and industry lives on copying off other country's technology. How is that innovation?

China doesn't bother with patents for inner market. And most likely that a lot of Chinese stuff imported here infringe on patent and patent holders aren't going after them because you simply cant stop it. In an era of instant communication and knowledge sharing, trying to stop someone from using an idea is completely stupid. If someone found out how you do something and do it better or cheaper than you, you've sit on your ass for too long and you should move on.

A question for the lawyers around. If Motorola payed for these licenses from 2003 to 2007, isn't that a proof that they acknowledge the existence and validity of the patents in the first place?

Right, what changed in 2007 such that Motorola thought they were no longer using their patents in their implementation? I mean, "I just don't feel like paying the royalties anymore" isn't going to fly. They must have thought they weren't infringing anymore. I can't imagine their legal department OK'd that one without some solid proof.

Patents are a necessary evil. Without it such as China for example, where their entire technology and industry lives on copying off other country's technology. How is that innovation?

Yes the whole disaster the last few months just screams innovation! Then it's been a fact for long time that large companies use their patent pools to kill newcomers with innovative ideas and then buy them up for a few cent or ignore the cadaver (you think you need a valid patent to drive someone out of business? Hardly, you just need any patent claims - that'll scare investors away and what young company has tens of millions to fight the patent claims in court?).

Oh and considering how well the whole IP protection works with China, even that argument doesn't hold much water..

A question for the lawyers around. If Motorola payed for these licenses from 2003 to 2007, isn't that a proof that they acknowledge the existence and validity of the patents in the first place?

Right, what changed in 2007 such that Motorola thought they were no longer using their patents in their implementation? I mean, "I just don't feel like paying the royalties anymore" isn't going to fly. They must have thought they weren't infringing anymore. I can't imagine their legal department OK'd that one without some solid proof.

They stopped making winmob phones or whatever, after being screwed (hyperbole) over by MS's OS.

Pretty damn simple to not infringe, just prevent making the calendar app from making appointments and at the same time, emailing it out.

Ban 'em. Ban the XBox and iOS device. Ban Samsung. Ban _everything_ that currently violates a patent and isn't being paid.

Then watch regular people who can't get nice things burn the patent office to the ground, sow salt into the dirt, and piss on the charred corpses of the patent office employees. Patent Office delenda est*.

Maybe then some headway will get made on fixing the entire patent system.

* Sorry, I just don't feel like figuring out how to translate "patent office" into Latin...which I don't speak anyway.

Patents are a necessary evil. Without it such as China for example, where their entire technology and industry lives on copying off other country's technology. How is that innovation?

China doesn't bother with patents for inner market. And most likely that a lot of Chinese stuff imported here infringe on patent and patent holders aren't going after them because you simply cant stop it.

You can't stop them making these patent infringing products but you can stop anyone importing or selling them. Happens all the time.

I'm not sure if patents and silly lawsuits aren't just a tiny part of a highly complex society, very much as global production processes are extremely complex. Maybe it's just another thing we'll have to live with. You surely need some lawyers and IP expertise to be Google or Apple or Motorola or whatever, but hey, you also need many engineers and other specialists to keep alive. Where's the difference?

indeed, shees the patent system is SO damn fucked up - stifling competition and innovation more than anything else.Beside, Microsoft did the same what Google/Motorola does now. Microsoft has (had?) a sale ban on XBOX 360 in Germany, what did Microsoft do? they just moved their entire warehouse logistics from Germany to the Netherlands to circumvent the ban.

it's just mudslinging. I daresay Microsoft is "scared" by the growth/influence Android has become on the market - so they fight all dirty.

One could argue using patented items when knowing they are patented (regardless of the horrible state of the USPO) is fighting "all dirty". Or asking for insane royalties on H264 patents instead of FRAND licensing is fighting "dirty". Motorola does both of those, but they are clearly the victim here right? Lets not be silly here, google will open source everything except the things that actually make them money, and those are things they pantent and will go after others for.

One could argue using patented items when knowing they are patented (regardless of the horrible state of the USPO) is fighting "all dirty". Or asking for insane royalties on H264 patents instead of FRAND licensing is fighting "dirty". Motorola does both of those, but they are clearly the victim here right? Lets not be silly here, google will open source everything except the things that actually make them money, and those are things they pantent and will go after others for.

One thing though - can you actually name a single case where Google have gone after others for where they have patents? So far all patents cases have been taken by others against Google, but never by Google as far as I am aware of.

Motorola? All current patent cases started before Google became the official owner although I believe Google intend to leave Motorola operating as it is (aka a standalone business) although I could be wrong there.

They'll import them with nothing flashed in the SOC. Then flash them once they get here. They'll just have to demo to the US Custom's people that there is no code inside. MS is trying to hack away at Google. Next there will be an app on Google Play that will do a similar thing but with different code. Judge can then throw the case out (assuming he's an honest one).

BTW the reason iPhones and Pads don't get hit with this same crap is that their version of Exchange Sync doesn't work right. Company here uses Exchange and Outlook clients and every time the sales guy sends me a meeting or calender request from his iPhone, it craters.

You surely need some lawyers and IP expertise to be Google or Apple or Motorola or whatever, but hey, you also need many engineers and other specialists to keep alive. Where's the difference?

The problem is if you have a new innovative product and you know you don't even have to start developing it, because you first need several millions and lots of lawyers to get through all the patent trials that'll be brought up against you. Even if you invalidate all of them, congratulations you just spent several years in court, still don't have a product and wasted millions. Also considering how extremely broad software patents are, the chances that you'll get each one invalidated gets quite unlikely statistically.

Other than sapping innovation by helping large corporations keep newcomers out of their business, it's a great system though. Google? Microsoft? Apple? For them it's just another business cost and as you'll notice they are more than willing to pay it, considering the advantages it gains them (or how you never hear any company with a large patent portfolio do anything about patent law)

Right, what changed in 2007 such that Motorola thought they were no longer using their patents in their implementation? I mean, "I just don't feel like paying the royalties anymore" isn't going to fly. They must have thought they weren't infringing anymore. I can't imagine their legal department OK'd that one without some solid proof.

They gave up on Windows Mobile and started selling Android phones?

Microsoft decided to bundle this patent with a bunch of other (mostly bullshit) patents to convince third-party OEMs to either ship Windows Phone devices, pay insane fees for every Android device sold, or both?

Microsoft prides itself on charging licenses on a majority of Android OEMs. Those licenses are (reportedly) nearly as expensive as licensing Windows Phone itself. The first OEMs to cave were those that sell Windows Phone devices (HTC, Samsung, etc).

I'm waiting for the day when they will sell phones without an OS. First thing you do when you unbox it is connect to a computer that downloads the latest software for the device and installs it. Presto, no more ITC crap!

If we had intelligent representatives they would be swayed by data on maximizing "progress of science and useful arts" instead we have lobbyists. Copyright and patents are a means not an end.

I think the "for limited times" should be applied much more draconic. I would have no trouble to give some rather trivial, but well conceived and cleverly implemented idea (like most of what Apple patented UI-wise) a few years to capitalize on. Say two, three or five years. Then, it's over and if you haven't been able to make money from it, bad luck. Can't be that a good idea then.

But all those who really think that patents need to go over board altogether: Be careful what you wish for.

Patents are a necessary evil. Without it such as China for example, where their entire technology and industry lives on copying off other country's technology. How is that innovation?

Simple. Manufacturers want to sell more to make more money. If they can't they can't rest on a monopoly, they introduce better/faster/cheaper models to outsell the competion. That is where the innovation comes from.

China doesn't bother with patents for inner market. And most likely that a lot of Chinese stuff imported here infringe on patent and patent holders aren't going after them because you simply cant stop it. In an era of instant communication and knowledge sharing, trying to stop someone from using an idea is completely stupid. If someone found out how you do something and do it better or cheaper than you, you've sit on your ass for too long and you should move on.

If you live in a (hypothetical) world where there's no imaginary property law, and someone's taken your process and made it faster and cheaper, then there shouldn't be anything preventing you from taking their innovations back, improving your own processes, and then trying to out-compete them again. In that scenario, the public gets better products due to the increased competition, than if one company sits on a process and doesn't allow anyone else to make use of it or improve upon it. But sadly, companies don't seem to want to compete in ways which benefit the public...

If we had intelligent representatives they would be swayed by data on maximizing "progress of science and useful arts" instead we have lobbyists. Copyright and patents are a means not an end.

I think the "for limited times" should be applied much more draconic. I would have no trouble to give some rather trivial, but well conceived and cleverly implemented idea (like most of what Apple patented UI-wise) a few years to capitalize on. Say two, three or five years. Then, it's over and if you haven't been able to make money from it, bad luck. Can't be that a good idea then.

But all those who really think that patents need to go over board altogether: Be careful what you wish for.

I'm fine with patents. I just believe there simply should be an Opt-Out clause. It just needs to simply and clearly state 1) An entity cannot own patents or own/invest in a company that own patents. 2) This entity can not be filed against for patent infringement. 3) Acceptance of the opt out clause moves any owned patents to the public domain at the time of acceptance.

You surely need some lawyers and IP expertise to be Google or Apple or Motorola or whatever, but hey, you also need many engineers and other specialists to keep alive. Where's the difference?

The problem is if you have a new innovative product and you know you don't even have to start developing it, because you first need several millions and lots of lawyers to get through all the patent trials that'll be brought up against you. Even if you invalidate all of them, congratulations you just spent several years in court, still don't have a product and wasted millions. Also considering how extremely broad software patents are, the chances that you'll get each one invalidated gets quite unlikely statistically.

Yeah, but maybe the times when you could start a billion dollar company in your garage are just over? Very much like the times are over when you could go somewhere and grab the land?

Voo42 wrote:

Other than sapping innovation by helping large corporations keep newcomers out of their business, it's a great system though. Google? Microsoft? Apple? For them it's just another business cost and as you'll notice they are more than willing to pay it, considering the advantages it gains them (or how you never hear any company with a large patent portfolio do anything about patent law)

That's a totally valid concern and the reason I think patents should be granted only for a short time, at least if they aren't patents that needed large amounts of R&D. For most things a few years should be more than enough.

Example: Apple has obviously patented the rubber-band effect when scrolling over the end of a list or page. This was a simple, but extremely clever idea that works very well, I have never seen anything that comes close to that. Giving them a patent for three years or so over that so they can exploit that it be fine. Anything more is madness. *Not at all* giving patents for such things would be mad too, though. Having some time to make a profit from something you put much love and work into is the best motivation to actually sit down and do it.

One could argue using patented items when knowing they are patented (regardless of the horrible state of the USPO) is fighting "all dirty". Or asking for insane royalties on H264 patents instead of FRAND licensing is fighting "dirty". Motorola does both of those, but they are clearly the victim here right? Lets not be silly here, google will open source everything except the things that actually make them money, and those are things they pantent and will go after others for.

One thing though - can you actually name a single case where Google have gone after others for where they have patents? So far all patents cases have been taken by others against Google, but never by Google as far as I am aware of.

Motorola? All current patent cases started before Google became the official owner although I believe Google intend to leave Motorola operating as it is (aka a standalone business) although I could be wrong there.

I think Moto added to claims against Microsoft after their buyout agreement specifically provided that Google had to approve, in writing, any change to their patent battles. If Google had the explicit policy to NOT sue anybody over IP, they could have stopped that.

But you sure DO have a point here. Even though Microsoft doesn't sell a LOT of phones these days, they *DO* have deep pockets, and you'd think that patent trolls would be happy to find instances of infringement. (Trolls having nothing to lose by counter-attacks.) And yet, even though trolls have nothing to gain from stifling innovation, all the suits seem to be versus a company that generally has less interest in whether or not they infringe patents, rather than who has the deepest pockets.

Further, in the context of Microsoft's and Google's many $Billions of business, a couple tens or hundreds of millions seem not the point. The fact that Motorola previously licensed the technology should make it very difficult to defend against a suit. I'd guess more that Moto's failed business model — they continued to be unprofitable and lost share even of Android phones — was more the cause for MMI to stanch the bleeding by postponing any day of reckoning until after Google took 'em over.

BTW, let's put a little perspective to the hysteria here. You can easily find Motorola named as using its patents to block GSM competitors in Europe, way back in the 90s. During a period of rapid innovation (the introduction of digital mobile, if that's significant to Ars readers), Moto was refusing to license its standards-essential patents, effectively strengthening the little club that built the GSM standard. (Other GSM patent-holders were under a requirement to license their patents, or not be able to bid on GSM infrastructure; Moto wasn't in that market.) I believe Moto's sharp elbows approach was the basis for the “Must license under FRAND terms” laws that arose subsequently to the concern that the GSM consortium had conspired to raise prices for customers by keeping cheap competition out of the market. Probably a significant part of the decision to create the EU Competition Commission. Big-Time players!

So

Moto is used to playing hardball in this field. This is not a cost of doing business, it's a WAY of doing business.

As a pioneer in cell tech, Moto has long enjoyed a nice revenue stream from licensing patents. Likely, received more than it's paid over the years. They are NOT clamoring for a retroactive return of all IP license fees.

The patent wars might actually have to do with who's using somebody else's invention without having contributed to financing the research.

We could have an interesting debate about how much intellectual property should be a public versus private good, but any such discussion that weeps for Motorola is corrupt from the get-go.

China doesn't bother with patents for inner market. And most likely that a lot of Chinese stuff imported here infringe on patent and patent holders aren't going after them because you simply cant stop it. In an era of instant communication and knowledge sharing, trying to stop someone from using an idea is completely stupid. If someone found out how you do something and do it better or cheaper than you, you've sit on your ass for too long and you should move on.

If you live in a (hypothetical) world where there's no imaginary property law, and someone's taken your process and made it faster and cheaper, then there shouldn't be anything preventing you from taking their innovations back, improving your own processes, and then trying to out-compete them again. In that scenario, the public gets better products due to the increased competition, than if one company sits on a process and doesn't allow anyone else to make use of it or improve upon it. But sadly, companies don't seem to want to compete in ways which benefit the public...

Everyone knows that incremental shit is bogus and a waste of time. REAL innovation comes from the 'EUREKA!' moment a genius has while sitting in a tub. And those are the people patents are meant to protect. It is not the implimentation and execution that drives progress, it is the exclusive one of a kind IDEAS and that's what we have to protect are the people that have those great ideas. It is those ideas that we know for fact never occur in but a single place in the world and even then only once, after which it is stolen and copied when people learn and talk. Two humans cannot independently come up with the same idea every, so that is proof our patent system works.

Patents are a necessary evil. Without it such as China for example, where their entire technology and industry lives on copying off other country's technology. How is that innovation?

Simple. Manufacturers want to sell more to make more money. If they can't they can't rest on a monopoly, they introduce better/faster/cheaper models to outsell the competion. That is where the innovation comes from.

"Better, faster, cheaper" is not innovation. It's what you get when there is no innovation but just competition. Nobody would waste effort, time and money to develop groundbreaking new things or develop new markets when the competition then can just jump in and make the same thing cheaper because they didn't have to invest money and take risks to begin with. Everybody would just wait for what is successful and then try to sell it cheaper. And hardly anybody would actually try to make something new successful. Nobody takes a risk if there's no gain.

I'm not saying that the patent system hasn't got problems, but just throwing patents out isn't the solution.

Example: Apple has obviously patented the rubber-band effect when scrolling over the end of a list or page. This was a simple, but extremely clever idea that works very well, I have never seen anything that comes close to that. Giving them a patent for three years or so over that so they can exploit that it be fine. Anything more is madness. *Not at all* giving patents for such things would be mad too, though. Having some time to make a profit from something you put much love and work into is the best motivation to actually sit down and do it.

That's actually a good example for an overly broad software patent. Look at how patents everywhere else work: You can't patent the concept of a "door stopper", you can only patent methods on how such a door stopper could be implemented. And you'll notice that all those patents are quite specific about their methods - such a patent generally gives you all the knowledge you need on how to design and implement the device.

Now look at how software patents work: You get some vague, non specific explanation of what you're doing with absolutely no specifics on how you'd actually design and implement such a thing. For mechanical patents you get wiring diagrams and co, for software the equivalent would be the source code (which would also limit this to the implementation in one language and not just some concept).

uhuznaa wrote:

Yeah, but maybe the times when you could start a billion dollar company in your garage are just over? Very much like the times are over when you could go somewhere and grab the land?

Seems so in this industry, or at least the game changed to trying to get bought by google or someone else. But the question is: If the patent system isn't actually helping those small newcomers with clever ideas, what is its actual goal and whom does it help?

They'll import them with nothing flashed in the SOC. Then flash them once they get here. They'll just have to demo to the US Custom's people that there is no code inside. MS is trying to hack away at Google. Next there will be an app on Google Play that will do a similar thing but with different code. Judge can then throw the case out (assuming he's an honest one).

This is actually a good solution.

-Android hardware makers sell their phones.-The software is obtainable on a separate medium FOR FREE

They can show that they do not profit off the "software" and that the hardware that they sell is otherwise useless. This circumvents the issue entirely.

The problem here are the carriers. They want full control over the software. Then it becomes difficult to ensure that the necessary software function exists to properly enable the devices. Without the functions, the hardware is just an expensive, but cool looking, useless object.